It seems that the music industry, which is supposedly there to understand and nurture creativity in music, lacks plenty of imagination when it comes to creating new business models and adapting to a fast changing world. It is currently throwing itself full swing into an expensive and unworkable strategy of attempting to control by force the uncontrollable. I am rather dissappointed in their vision of internet service providers as a police state arm of the music industry. That doesn’t seem to me the kind of industry with a heart that I would like to support until it changes it mind and becomes more creative in business. There are notable exceptions and a faint glimmer of light on the horizon with the likes of spotify. There needs to be more creative thinking like this in the board room. The world changes and businesses that survive are the ones that spend their resources adapting creatively and testing new models rather than fighting the impossible goal of trying to turn time backwards with a big stick. While the music industry is spending it’s money and politicians are spending ours on an bigger better stick, they could have been spending it on developing a workable approach.
My first advice to them would be to listen to Dan Pink on finding alternative business models rather than attempting to bash square pegs into round holes like an immature child. He shows some interesting economic research that music business directors should heed if they wish to survive this century, rather than be taken over by rather more clever and creative new comers.
don’t even know where to start with this. total idiocy.
there is no doubt the industry has to adapt creatively to the challenges it faces. equally there is no doubt, even amongst the major players responsible for a good portion of the heel dragging, that they were far too slow to react to the realities of the digital age.
the emergence of spotify (which as i’m sure your aware, is only able to function due to the equity stake held in it by the major labels) and other platforms is in my opinion a sign that we are starting to see the emergence of exactly the kind of creativity you, and everyone else agrees is needed.
however, to hold that platform innovation need not be accompanied by an corresponding modernisation in copyright enforcement is absurd. the two are not mutually exclusive and in fact, it is everyone’s interest in the long run that they compliment each other going forward.
Thanks for joinging the discussion and giving a comment.
Is it as idiotic as assuming that the number of downloads = the number of lost sales? By that same logic, a radio play must also be a lost sale, or hearing it in your friend’s car, because someone heard it without paying.
Here is some more info on tracing the numbers. They don’t make sense.
http://www.badscience.net/2009/06/home-taping-didnt-kill-music/#more-1163
The problem for me with this whole sorry saga is that real evidence is required but the figures that get shouted about are so fake, that I am really not impressed either. This is so not a solution and potentially a good way for the industry to shoot itself in the foot even further. It will generate a lot of bad feeling and do little to support good music. I don’t think you get people to buy stuff by scaring them into what seems like the beginning of a police state. Buy because we are watching you is simply not a good marketing tactic. That sends the wrong message about an industry that is supposed to support creativity.
From personal experience, I know that downloaded stuff often leads to CD, merchandise and concert sales etc. Won’t all these sales be lost by the new proposals? A few years ago, when napster started, I used it and found many new artists and bought CDs and went to concerts because of it. When it got closed down, so did my spending because I no longer had a way to find stuff. Most of the downloads of course never got listened to a second time because they were rubbish and not worth pursuing further. How does that equate to a lost sale? My actual spending on music dropped to a quarter by closing such a useful tool down. Some of the downloads were of things I had previously bought on vinyl, CD and got scratched or lost etc so had already paid my dues. Turning curiosity (or a second format) into paranoia is such a strange thing to be doing if you want people to associate good feelings with buying later. Do you know any psychology?
If you know anything about how the internet evolves and open source communities, this will just drive the development of more sophisticated and untraceable means. This is the techie world is known as creating “fixes that fail”.
I am not surprised by the results of the norwegian study
http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2009/apr/21/study-finds-pirates-buy-more-music
Back in the days of “home taping is killing music” people giving their friends tapes lead to wider appreciation and sales etc. It certainly didn’t kill music or this conversation wouldn’t be happening.
If it becomes “bad” to give your friend something you like, then what kind of value in society are we promoting?